Recently many people who were unaware of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, came to know about it through the debates across media on the CAA and whether it is violating Article 14 or not. So here I am, eager to share some information about Article 14 and the basic structure of the Indian Constitution along with one famous judgement of the Supreme Court on the Fundamental Rights.
Fundamental Rights along with the Directive Principles Of State Policy were adopted by the constitution makers to safeguard the individual liberty and to ensure political, social and economic justice to every member of the society respectively. Fundamental Rights are not absolute and they have limitations under certain circumstances like an Emergency but the individual /legal entity /company etc. can challenge the state in court under ordinary circumstances so that the subservient legislature should not serve as a handmaid to the executive in committing inroads upon the individual liberty. The Directive Principles Of State Policy cannot be challenged in any court.
Part 3 of the Indian Constitution deals with Fundamental rights of citizens (some of them are also applied to friendly aliens) . Article 14 confers the Fundamental right of (1) Equality before law and (2) Equal protection of the laws. Equality before law “declares the equality of all persons within the Indian Territory”. The concept of Equality before the law has been taken from British Constitution while the concept of Equal protection of the laws has its origin in American Constitution. Equality before law means that no one is above the law of the land, be it the Prime Minister of the country or a laborer in a coal field (recently, an Ex BJP MLA named Kuldeep Sengar got life imprisonment in the infamous Unnao Rape case) . There are no special privileges for anyone ,be it rich or poor, official or non -official, celebrity or politician, etc. and everyone is subject to the same law of the land. But the Article 14 have some exceptions and while applying these exceptions while making laws, the article doesn’t require the legislature to be perfect in some classifications, either logically or scientifically.
Under the aegis of this Article, a person would be considered as treated unequally only if he or she were treated worse than others and the latter must have faced similar conditions or who are similarly situated to the complainant. For e.g., the Union Government Of India has notified in the CAA, 2019 that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain Parsi or Christian Community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan who entered into India shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purpose of this act. Whether the act is constitutional or not is not the question here, but you have to notice that the government have made a “reasonable classification” while formulating this act. You may notice that the government hasn’t included Muslims or Jews in the list as according to them, the Muslims are majority in these 3 countries and are not persecuted on religion basis and Jews don’t live there. The legislature would be entitled to give different treatment if there is such a reasonable basis for the classification.
So long as the classification can withstand the test of Article 14, it cannot be questioned on the ground that why one subject is included and another excluded, why one is given more benefit than the others. An example to better understand this concept is our tax system. The tax system have slabs according to income level. It doesn’t tax the same amount to the one who earns INR 50,000 /month and the one who earns INR 15,000/month. The state can treat unequal differently with the objective of creating a level playing field in all the socio-economic and political spheres.
There was also a debate on basic structure doctrine (BSD) of the constitution. Firstly, I should make it clear that the basic structure of the constitution is not written anywhere in the constitution. So, what is actually the basic structure and when was it first ideated? The basic structure of the constitution was first created by the Supreme Court Of India in 1973 in the famous Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala Case. This BSD suggests that the Parliament has the power to amend the entire Constitution, but subject to the condition that they cannot in any manner, interfere with the features fundamental to the Constitution, without which it would be spiritless. The court suggested some of the features which are now considered as basic structure, they uphold the supremacy of the constitution, republican and democratic form of government, secular character of the constitution, separation of power between executive, legislature and judiciary, individual freedom, federal character of the constitution, sovereignty and the unity of India etc. The Supreme Court can from time to time review these features.
It was surprising for me to know that the respondents in the case of Kesavananda Bharati case claim that Parliament can abrogate fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, freedom to form associations or unions, and freedom of religion. They claim that democracy can even be replaced and one party rule established. Indeed, short of repeal of the Constitution, any form of government with no freedom to the citizens can be set up by Parliament by exercising its powers under Article 368. So thanks to this judgement as it saved our constitution. This is the unique case which has shown us that for a democracy to sustain, there should be checks and balances across every pillar of democracy, including the media.
Comments
Post a Comment